Multispecies Justice’s conceptual ambiguity undermines nature conservation

Multispecies justice (MSJ) seeks to extend justice beyond humans. This concept may appear to improve environmental stewardship, however its openness risks undermining well-established principles of conservation and justice. Its open interpretation facilitates conceptual ambiguity, hindering practical operationalisation, risking moralising natural processes, while overlooking complexities of human-nature interactions and potentially weakening conservation efforts by opening the door for political misuse. In contrast, existing ethical and conservation frameworks already provide approaches to include nonhumans in justice, conservation and policy considerations. Building on three normative ethical theories (consequentialist, deontological and virtue ethics), we demonstrate how nonhumans can already be included in ethical considerations. Applying these theories enhances applicability through alignment with historic, juridical, scientific and religious moral systems. We therefore advocate strengthening established conservation and justice principles to address environmental crises. Future development of MSJ should build on its current popularity while integrating established, applicable ethical insights for including nonhumans in moral considerations.